Scarborough on Krugman: “self-consumed professor” with a “daily … ideological Vaudeville act”

posted at 2:31 pm on February 16, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

May I assume that Paul Krugman and Joe Scarborough won’t send each other holiday greeting cards this December?  After an argument on the set of Morning Joe this week over whether America needs to act now on long-term debt, the host of the show wrote not one but two Politico op-eds in the past 24 hours blasting his guest.  This morning, Scarborough laid out the case for why long-term debt needs to be addressed in the short term by deficit elimination and structural reform for entitlement programs:

More troubling for the future is that private domestic investment—the fuel for future economic growth—shows a strong negative correlation with government debt levels over several business cycles dating back to the late 1950s. Continuing high debt does not bode well in this regard.

As the biggest economy in the world, America has a lot to say about how the world works. But the economics profession is beginning to understand that high levels of public debt can slow economic growth, especially when gross general government debt rises above 85 or 90 percent of GDP.

The United States crossed that threshold in 2009, and the negative effects are probably mostly out in the future. These will come at a bad time. The U.S. share of global economic output has been falling since 1999—by nearly 5 percentage points as of 2011. As America’s GDP share declined, so did its share of world trade, which may reduce U.S. influence in setting the rules for international trade.

It’s not until the end that Scarborough pre-rebuts critics by revealing that the entire column was written by economists from the RAND Corporation:

If you believe that I am wrong and Paul Krugman is right, if you disagree that America’s debt crisis is serious today, that it is draining American soft power globally, that it is devaluing the dollar, that it is undermining our influence with international trading partners, that painful adjustments in government outlays will be necessary, and that we cannot afford to wait until 2025 to worry about Medicare and other drivers of U.S. debt, then take it up with the RAND Corporation, whose senior economist wrote everything you have read here other than this concluding paragraph. The debt crisis is real and waiting another decade to fix it is not an option. Anyone who suggests it is operates well outside the mainstream of where serious economists reside.

That shot about “serious economists” must sting for a man who’s won the Nobel Prize in that field.  That, however, was just Scarborough calming down.  Less than 20 hours earlier, the MSNBC host ripped Krugman for his “ideological Vaudeville act” and all but called him a clown for claiming that the US didn’t need to worry about entitlement programs until they actually collapsed:

Mr. Krugman responded to the flurry of criticism he received by excoriating “in-crowd” types like “Joe Scarborough, Erskine Bowles and Pete Peterson,” (and anyone else who disagreed with him) as members of an incestuous clique populated by shallow simpletons who draw their economic conclusions based on hearsay instead of rigorous study and hard data.

Unfortunately for the self-consumed professor, his latest lurch left has created an entirely new collection of critics that are a far cry from the right-wing straw men that he usually sets up to knock down. Instead, Krugman’s extreme view that Washington should ignore long-term debt until the bottom falls out of entitlements now places him at odds with liberal Keynesians as well as conservative Republicans.

I would like to believe that Paul’s “Morning Joe” routine was simply an attempt to be provocative and bring to camera the ideological Vaudeville act that he performs daily on his hilariously entitled New York Times blog. This is where Krugman flails about at windmills while professing his omnipotence daily, in between stints as a serious economist.

Scarborough also blasted Krugman’s “merry band of bloggers” busily defending the “In-the-end-we’ll-all-be-dead” approach to U.S. long-term debt:

Krugman’s views on long-term debt are, in fact, wildly outside mainstream economic thought. But he is wrong in saying that his interview made me angry. Watch it here and see how I was polite, engaged and entertained by the preposterousness of his debt-denying logic. Far from being angered, I found the interview to be one of my favorites of the year. He is welcome back anytime.

Unfortunately, Paul Krugman and his merry band of bloggers were not as excited by the “Morning Joe” appearance, as they rushed to their laptops to launch a ham-fisted defense of debt denial. Krugman’s apostles then proceeded to mischaracterize his critics and reframe the debate.

Bloggers from The Washington Post, Business Insider and New York Magazine all wrote posts accusing Paul Krugman’s critics of being ignorant of basic economics. All three then proceeded to embarrass themselves by mixing up the most basic concepts of economics by repeatedly confusing the terms “deficits” and “debt.”

The Atlantic’s Derek Thompson falls on the side of Krugman, albeit with an explanation:

Joe Scarborough understands this. He says he wants higher deficits *and* a game-plan for cutting our long-term debt (which is the accumulation of our deficits). But he doesn’t fully understand — or properly communicate — how the argument for long-term debt reduction rests on assumptions about the future that are exquisitely sensitive to change. The precise dimensions of our 2020 debt are calculated from a matrix of variables (e.g. immigration, productivity growth, hospital construction growth, MRI inflation rates) whose very nature is to fluctuate, sometimes dramatically, on a quarterly or annual basis. …

Our debt projections looks like math, because they have numbers all over them. But math is a law. Actuarial projections are not. They are smart guesswork facilitated by multiplying current trends over many years. There’s an important difference, because everything can change.

For example, what if health care inflation slows down?

Actually, that’s not a “what-if.” Two weeks ago, CBO revealed that health care spending has “grown much more slowly than historical rates would have predicted.” It cut estimates of federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare in 2020 by “about $200 billion.” That’s a lot of money. It is much more than Washington would save by raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. If you thought raising the retirement age was enough to calm the market’s appetite for debt reduction, then guess what? We just got those 2X those savings by doing nothing.

It’s true that projections of debt and liability growth are imperfect, as all such projections are, but that doesn’t mean they’re not math-based.  And one doesn’t need to rely too much on projections out to 2020 or 2035, because we can take a look back at the expansion of national debt over the last ten years, thanks in large part to the programs that Krugman argues don’t require attention now.  In the last five years, we’ve added over $5 trillion to that debt, which accounts for one-third of all our national debt, and the rate won’t slow down.  Even the White House projects annual deficits to go down to just around $600 billion and then rise back to the trillion-dollar level at the end of the decade, and that’s assuming some very rosy economic-growth numbers.

That’s why Scarborough and RAND see the need for structural reform now – and there is another reason not to wait.  By the time we get out to The Great Collapse, we will have crowded out all of the potential private-sector options for people to use when the government programs fail. We will have hundreds of millions of people whose money got sucked into the system, and who will have no services to see for them.  Even if we could successfully rebuild those programs immediately and maintain service rationally for the future, any such reform would leave tens of millions outside that system, with nowhere else to go.  (And if we could do that then, why not now?)

Now, that may not matter to those who will be dead by then, but it will matter to those who will be alive.  We would be allowing a massive societal breakdown to occur even though we can clearly see today how to prevent it, and we would be allowing the destruction of safety-net programs in the future by refusing to reform them today, and left no options for assistance for those in need.  Just how responsible and compassionate is that?

Addendum: As far as Krugman being welcome back to Morning Joe, it’s kind of Joe to say, but … this doesn’t seem to be a very good way to treat a guest.  I’m no fan of Paul Krugman, but writing an insult-filled op-ed in another prominent forum about someone after they’ve left the set doesn’t seem like good form to me.  This is something Joe could have said to Krugman on set, where Krugman could have answered him in real time.  Joe owes Paul an apology.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Rooting for Joe Scarborough is like rooting for Erick-Woods Erickson. In the immortal words of George H. W. Bush and/or Dana Carvey, “not gonna do it.”

steebo77 on February 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM

The first Republican primary debate will have so many podiums that maybe they’ll be in alphabetical order and extend into the parking lot by the time they get to Santorum, Scarborough.

Marcus on February 16, 2013 at 2:38 PM

MORE POPCORN!

GarandFan on February 16, 2013 at 2:38 PM

By the time we get out to The Great Collapse, we will have crowded out all of the potential private-sector options for people to use when the government programs fail.

Oh those unintended consequences.

Cleombrotus on February 16, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Um, Joe – you’re a bit of a sideshow freak act yourself, bub.

Midas on February 16, 2013 at 2:40 PM

It’s unattractive to bully the mentally ill.

Kataklysmic on February 16, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Scarborough on Krugman: “self-consumed professor” with a “daily … ideological Vaudeville act”

Even if Joe is a goofball, that’s pretty good, you gotta admit.

Cleombrotus on February 16, 2013 at 2:41 PM

But back in 2003, when the fiscal imbalance was a much smaller $377.6 billion, Krugman wrote:

With war looming, it’s time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I’m terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits….

How will the train wreck play itself out? Maybe a future administration will use butterfly ballots to disenfranchise retirees, making it possible to slash Social Security and Medicare. Or maybe a repentant Rush Limbaugh will lead the drive to raise taxes on the rich. But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.

And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. It won’t happen right away. With the economy stalling and the stock market plunging, short-term rates are probably headed down, not up, in the next few months, and mortgage rates may not have hit bottom yet. But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future.

I think that the main thing keeping long-term interest rates low right now is cognitive dissonance. Even though the business community is starting to get scared — the ultra-establishment Committee for Economic Development now warns that ”a fiscal crisis threatens our future standard of living” — investors still can’t believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic. But I’ve done the math, and reached my own conclusions — and I’ve locked in my rate.

If you are tempted to ask “Well, how is now any different?,” don’t.

“The one that we’ve been waiting for” is now in the White House…so, it’s all good!

Resist We Much on February 16, 2013 at 2:42 PM

This is a pissing match where I hope that both contestants get soaked.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 16, 2013 at 2:46 PM

To freak’n idiots getting their panties into a bunch on whose more relative. And Morrissey thinks this is worthy of attention.

lowandslow on February 16, 2013 at 2:48 PM

? Lib on lib crime with two hacks no one listens to…and since one has an R by their name, not even ‘man bites dog’ worthy.

sauldalinsky on February 16, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Perhaps you missed your own point about how Scarborough had a RAND economist write the op-ed. Joe knows he doesn’t have the chops to go man to man with Krazy Krugman. But he knows BS when he hears it.

This is something Joe could have said to Krugman on set, where Krugman could have answered him in real time. Joe owes Paul an apology.

Perhaps you would like a fiddle to go with that Roman fire? Marquis of Queensbury rules seem somewhat inappropriate. Especially when 99% of the media stands with Krugman.

deadite on February 16, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Rooting for Joe Scarborough is like rooting for Erick-Woods Erickson. In the immortal words of George H. W. Bush and/or Dana Carvey, “not gonna do it.”

steebo77 on February 16, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Nothing more needs to be said!

KBird on February 16, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Marcus Nice thought but they aren’t going to put the Savior that far off stage.

Illinidiva on February 16, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Blue on blue catfights are always amusing to watch – personally I’m going to root for the meteor.

Gator Country on February 16, 2013 at 3:01 PM

I don’t see how Joe owes Krugman an apology. I can’t stand either of them, but in this Joe is 100% right. Paul Krugman is a clown. It’s time we started calling a spad a spade. I am sick to death of being told that everyone’s opinions are essentially equal simply because we all have a right to express them.

Warner Todd Huston on February 16, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Here, I’ll go with Joe. Krugman is unbelievably so full of himself. Met him twice. Talked about economic policies on meeting. And for a dignified Nobel prize winning economist, accused me of being a teaba**er. Crazy dude.

tommy71 on February 16, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Actually, that’s not a “what-if.” Two weeks ago, CBO revealed that health care spending has “grown much more slowly than historical rates would have predicted.” It cut estimates of federal spending on Medicaid and Medicare in 2020 by “about $200 billion.” That’s a lot of money. It is much more than Washington would save by raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. If you thought raising the retirement age was enough to calm the market’s appetite for debt reduction, then guess what? We just got those 2X those savings by doing nothing.

This is precious. Is the variation from historical rates flutter or is there, say a causality? Because the writer is incurious in either case, lest something derail their rush to claim victory, as if “do nothing” was a)a well thought out plan and b)not obviously contrary to every impulse of the progressives.

My guess is that the slowed growth in health care spending is related to, you know, the economic disaster of the last 4 years in which even the co-pay for insurance or medicine, if you have insurance, is going to make some people stop and think. Of course, that same downturn slowed the influx of income to the government. If you want to build your plan to save medicare on the economic starvation of those who pay the taxes for medicare, that’s cool; it will at least be instructive to see if spending retards at a rate fast enough to overcome the amount we spend on medicaid except oops–we’re already spending at deficit levels.

If, on the other hand, the reduction in the rate of spending (I do love that the best conversation we can have anymore is about the rate of increase of something, not actual reductions) is random, then what are we celebrating, exactly? Dumb luck? I guess we should party now because it’s going to be a bitch when we randomly bounce to 2x more than the historical rate of growth. That would add the $200B back plus add $200B. As they say, a lot of money.

TexasDan on February 16, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Here is THE ONLY Option for THIS and ANY OTHER Blog that considers the Furture of Continuing The Human Race a Just and Noble Cause:

COMPLETELY, TOTALLY AND UTTERLY DESTROY and DEVASTATE:

– Paul Krugman
– Joe Scarborough

This needs to happen to BOTH of them and this should extend to any support of them, and anyone in their “support system”….

williamg on February 16, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Ed’s a better man than me. Paul Krugman is a clown and I don’t mind whomever says so.

22044 on February 16, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Scarborough on Krugman: “self-consumed professor” with a “daily … ideological Vaudeville act”
===========================

Ahem:No Sh*t SherLock Scarborough,……

……ya know,Krugman has that Crazy Look Stare,just like
all the other Loony-Tics that have caused carnage at
recent School situations,and a theatre showing of a
certain comic book hero that ran amucketh!!

Jus say’n!!!

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Here, I’ll go with Joe. Krugman is unbelievably so full of himself. Met him twice. Talked about economic policies on meeting. And for a dignified Nobel prize winning economist, accused me of being a teaba**er. Crazy dude.

tommy71 on February 16, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Just goes to show that all his academic accolades are just formal recognition for being an obedient liberal. What a petty hack.

My uncle writes for the NYT, prominent in his field but probably not known around here though he’s on TV somewhat often. He’s good friends MoDo and probably some of the other oped crazies. Got in a big political argument with him over thanksgiving.

He: a) thought GWB started the Obama stimulus, b) didn’t know the difference between SS and SSDI, and c) was unaware the Bush cuts were extended by Obama and the Dem congress in 2010. I told him to stop listening to “that crackpot Krugman”, and he about blew a gasket. “Nobel, this, Princeton that.” Told him BFD – they gave Obama a Nobel as soon as he walked in the WH door. Didn’t have much to say about that.

crrr6 on February 16, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Joe owes Paul an apology.

After all the horrifying things Krug has written and done from his infamous 9/11 column, to his ecstatic embrace of Jared Laughner as a “tea party killer, you believe he deserves apologies?

rob verdi on February 16, 2013 at 3:27 PM

If Scar wasn’t in front of a TV camera with a contract to protect his lame azz, he’d be just another OWS dreg trying to gain relevance by trashing on a police car.

Pffft!

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Scarborough on Krugman: “self-consumed professor” with a “daily … ideological Vaudeville act”

Scarborough only does Republican about once a month, so he’s finished for February. Tune in again in March for his single Republican moment in that month.

RJL on February 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Two faced wind vane – cracks on a bed wetter.

Bizarro world.

jake-the-goose on February 16, 2013 at 3:31 PM

Please notice, too: Liberals are NEVER self-consumed. /

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Please notice, too: Liberals are NEVER self-consumed. /

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Liam:Lol,yup,may I say,All Consuming,er,Total Consuming!:)

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 3:37 PM

This is something Joe could should have said to Krugman on set, if he had been capable, where Krugman could have answered him in real time.

I’m not the quickest responder on weighty matters, but I don’t have a political talk show where I pretend to be conservative, either.

S. D. on February 16, 2013 at 3:37 PM

……ya know,Krugman has that Crazy Look Stare…

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Doesn’t he though?

Cleombrotus on February 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Here’s a link to an interview that Krugman gave in 2004:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1064193.htm

choice excerpts:

PROFESSOR PAUL KRUGMAN, PRINCETON ECONOMIST: Well, basically we have a world-class budget deficit not just as in absolute terms of course – it’s the biggest budget deficit in the history of the world – but it’s a budget deficit that as a share of GDP is right up there.

It’s comparable to the worst we’ve ever seen in this country.

It’s biggest than Argentina in 2001.

Which is not cyclical, there’s only a little bit that’s because the economy is depressed.

Mostly it’s because, fundamentally, the Government isn’t taking in enough money to pay for the programs and we have no strategy of dealing with it.

So, if you take a look, the only thing that sustains the US right now is the fact that people say, “Well America’s a mature, advanced country and mature, advanced countries always, you know, get their financial house in order,” but there’s not a hint that that’s on the political horizon, so I think we’re looking for a collapse of confidence some time in the not-too-distant future.

The deficit was only 259Billion!!!

read the whole thing..basically when there’s a Republican in the WH..deficits and debt BAD..but when a Dem is in the WH..deficits and debt GOOD

what a clown

galtg on February 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Liberals are trying hard to mainstream lunacy. I would say I’d like going along with that, but I prefer reality and all the faults of it.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Hm. Which squirrel will end up with the nut? I wonder …

M240H on February 16, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Kettle. Pot.

pat on February 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Joe is the proverbial broken clock; he may want get a little distance between Mika, the MSNBC crowd and himself.

Tater Salad on February 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Just checking in with HA for a minute and I see this thread and the one about Maher/Hagel. I don’t really understand the point/thesis of the blogs given that sources of the comments are living up to their pathetic reputations: Maher is a Jerk and Scarborough mimics broken clock. The consistency with which these guys are inept jerks is dependable, and I feel like we keep rehashing the punchlines about them in the comments.

The MSM is so incredibly dishonest and treasonous and they keep finding ways to lower the bar even more. I just don’t know what else to say about the media topic. We’ve lost this war.

Jackalope on February 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Barnum&Bailey.

hillsoftx on February 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Joe is the proverbial broken clock; he may want get a little distance between Mika, the MSNBC crowd and himself.

Tater Salad on February 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM

He can’t. It is only among them he finds relevance, aspiration.

He needs those invites to drunken cocktail parties, to be ‘among’ and ‘involved’.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 3:47 PM

After all the horrifying things Krug has written and done from his infamous 9/11 column, to his ecstatic embrace of Jared Laughner as a “tea party killer, you believe he deserves apologies?

rob verdi on February 16, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Krugman deserves no apology, but that doesn’t change the fact that Scarborough owes him one. It has nothing to do with what Krugman deserves, and everything to do with the obligations of a host. If he is unwilling to treat a guest with basic respect, no matter how unearned, then he should not invite him in the first place.

The reason is that if you set a precedent that after you invite someone on your show, you might trash them the very next day because they’re a jerk who more than deserves it, then there’s no way for any other future guest to know you won’t do the same to them – if I’m invited onto Scarorough’s show, how do I know he doesn’t think I’m a jerk unworthy of respect just like Krugman, and isn’t planning to use my appearance to draw attention to a column where he trashes me the next day?

RINO in Name Only on February 16, 2013 at 3:52 PM

Just checking in with HA for a minute and I see this thread and the one about Maher/Hagel. I don’t really understand the point/thesis of the blogs given that sources of the comments are living up to their pathetic reputations: Maher is a Jerk and Scarborough mimics broken clock. The consistency with which these guys are inept jerks is dependable, and I feel like we keep rehashing the punchlines about them in the comments.
The MSM is so incredibly dishonest and treasonous and they keep finding ways to lower the bar even more. I just don’t know what else to say about the media topic. We’ve lost this war.

Jackalope on February 16, 2013 at 3:45 PM

I don’t know about the Maher/Hagel thread, but the point of this one seems to be a fairly deep discussion of economics, which has relevance no matter what one thinks of the various MSM personalities/ media implications involved.

RINO in Name Only on February 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

As far as Krugman being welcome back to Morning Joe, it’s kind of Joe to say, but … this doesn’t seem to be a very good way to treat a guest. I’m no fan of Paul Krugman, but writing an insult-filled op-ed in another prominent forum about someone after they’ve left the set doesn’t seem like good form to me. This is something Joe could have said to Krugman on set, where Krugman could have answered him in real time. Joe owes Paul an apology.

Ed, you are too nice. Krugman deserves every insult. He’s an insulting writing.

thuja on February 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Krugman looks like a crazed mass shooter. He scares me.

The Rogue Tomato on February 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Krugman, Obama, and other liberal economic ‘thinkers’ base their whole approach on the arrogant assumption that we will always be the world’s reserve currency.

MechanicalBill on February 16, 2013 at 4:08 PM

Soooooooooooooo,the problem is,More Spending is neccessary,
even tho,Washington can’t walk and chew gum at the same time!

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 4:10 PM

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Doesn’t he though?

Cleombrotus on February 16, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Cleombrotus:What you said:)

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Two freak’n idiots getting their panties into a bunch on whose more relative. And Morrissey thinks this is worthy of attention.

lowandslow on February 16, 2013 at 2:48 PM

God Bless you for seeing through the facade of this blog!

williamg on February 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Come on, Ed. Really.

Joe Scowborrow is the least relevant RINO on earth, and yet he gets an astonishing amount of press. Let him rot in that festering sewer MSNBC.

Jaibones on February 16, 2013 at 4:15 PM

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Liberals are trying hard to mainstream lunacy. I would say I’d like going along with that, but I prefer reality and all the faults of it.

Liam on February 16, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Liam:

Yup,and after six years with Team Blue,its getting more “Certifiable
by the day”!:)

canopfor on February 16, 2013 at 4:15 PM

RINO in Name Only on February 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Yes, this is true, but I guess I feel as equally cynical about economic discussions. With a dozen high-level democrats recently saying we “don’t have a spending problem,” we’re screwed 10 ways from Sunday and the dishonest media will carry that water.

Jackalope on February 16, 2013 at 4:18 PM

RINO in Name Only on February 16, 2013 at 3:52 PM,
certain people make choices (krugman) and by doing so forfeit basic decencies.

rob verdi on February 16, 2013 at 4:26 PM

so i followed the clicks thru the Derek Thompson piece. What he doesn’t tell you (i.e. the pea under the thimble) is that the Medicare projected costs in 2020 are based on indexes of many different productivity measures.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires that certain indexes used to update payment rates be adjusted by the 10‐year moving average of multi‐factor productivity. This
includes indexes for: inpatient acute hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, long‐term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation hospitals, home health agencies, psychiatric
hospitals, hospice care, dialysis, outpatient hospitals, ambulance services, ambulatory surgical center services, laboratory services, certain durable medical equipment,
prosthetic devices, and orthotics. The adjustment for multi‐factor productivity is included in the PPS Update Factor and the MEI shown above

And, indeed, these Medicare increases look quite modest…given historical trends.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43894_Medicare.pdf

Running a centralized, nationalized, planned economy can be Fun and Enriching.

Interestingly, the Medicaid program looks to have greater inflation (both in aggregate and on a per person basis)

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43885-Medicaid.pdf

but i’m sure that i misunderstand, and i’m real sure the our
R party will stick up for the citizens /s

r keller on February 16, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Krugman is a nut, but I thought Morning Schmoe only bashed Republicans . . .

TarheelBen on February 16, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Scarborough only does Republican about once a month, so he’s finished for February. Tune in again in March for his single Republican moment in that month.

RJL on February 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM

…who deemed this clown a conservative anyway?…the same idiots that deemed dogeater fit for the head of the nation and the demorat party?…and who said Joe Scartissue is a Republican?…just cause he says he is?…my wife has informed that I am no male Adonis…I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer…and yes I do have an attitude problem…even if I say different! …who the fluke is Joe Scartissue?

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2013 at 4:48 PM

williamg on February 16, 2013 at 4:12 PM

t a k e
i t
e a s y !

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2013 at 4:50 PM

How can they spend 15 minutes talking about fixing healthcare and how many years are left before the system collapses when ObamaCare made it all perfect?/

RalphyBoy on February 16, 2013 at 4:53 PM

It doesn’t happen every often, but once in a while Scarborough comes up with a good put down of a leftist gas bag.

He should do it more often. Very often. Like on his show.

He might actually increase his ratings and attract some conservative eyeballs to MSNBC.

But, of course, then they’ll have to fire him.

Not that either will ever happen, since Joe leans left of center himself and enjoys joining in with the libs and lefties when they deride, attack, and criticize conservatives.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 4:54 PM

This is a pissing match where I hope that both contestants get soaked.

OhEssYouCowboys on February 16, 2013 at 2:46 PM

…both are a$$holes!…they just are arguing over who has… the biggest opening!

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Joe Scarborough, Paul Krugman, Ed Morrissey et al. Your main function is to provide us entertainment and promote yourselves for followers and viewers. Don’t take yourselves too seriously.
No need for any of you to give apologies to each other at anytime.

Goodale on February 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM

My uncle writes for the NYT, prominent in his field but probably not known around here though he’s on TV somewhat often. He’s good friends MoDo and probably some of the other oped crazies. Got in a big political argument with him over thanksgiving.

He: a) thought GWB started the Obama stimulus, b) didn’t know the difference between SS and SSDI, and c) was unaware the Bush cuts were extended by Obama and the Dem congress in 2010. I told him to stop listening to “that crackpot Krugman”, and he about blew a gasket. “Nobel, this, Princeton that.” Told him BFD – they gave Obama a Nobel as soon as he walked in the WH door. Didn’t have much to say about that.

crrr6 on February 16, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Want to see your uncle really blow a gasket? Tell him what Krugman “won” isn’t a real Nobel Prize. It’s simply a Memorial Award in Economics, one established nearly a century after Alfred Nobel endowed the original awards. The Nobel foundation oversees it, but it’s not an actual Nobel Prize.

Del Dolemonte on February 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Uh, an apology? For taking Krugman on in print? Sorry, but economists fight all the time in print. So does Krugman and his mouthpiece the NYT.

I’m sure Paul appreciates the concern for his sensibilities but this isn’t tiddlywinks.

Besides, do you really believe the RAND piece would have been fully laid out without interruption in an interview with the vehement opposition? That’s fantasy.

I say, let’s have the debate. Leave the choice of weapons to the combatants. They don’t need protection from their own ideas, good or bad.

IndieDogg on February 16, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Want to see your uncle really blow a gasket? Tell him what Krugman “won” isn’t a real Nobel Prize. It’s simply a Memorial Award in Economics, one established nearly a century after Alfred Nobel endowed the original awards. The Nobel foundation oversees it, but it’s not an actual Nobel Prize.

Del Dolemonte on February 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Now I’ve learned something useful today. I’ll be using that.

My usual response when someone mentions his “Nobel Prize” when I say Krugmann is a fool and may be insane is … So what? Milton Friedman won one too and he would completely disagree with Krugmann.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 5:07 PM

the “In-the-end-we’ll-all-be-dead” approach to U.S. long-term debt:

But that is Keynes. I.e., don’t worry, spend now.

AshleyTKing on February 16, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Addendum: As far as Krugman being welcome back to Morning Joe, it’s kind of Joe to say, but … this doesn’t seem to be a very good way to treat a guest. I’m no fan of Paul Krugman, but writing an insult-filled op-ed in another prominent forum about someone after they’ve left the set doesn’t seem like good form to me. This is something Joe could have said to Krugman on set, where Krugman could have answered him in real time. Joe owes Paul an apology.

I would agree except for the fact that this is a sword that Krugman lives by on a daily basis.He constantly goes to his column in the NY Times to blast people personally and his Occupy Army eats it up.

He loves to go on and on and on about how much more he knows on economic matters than everyone else…..ignoring his glaring hypocrisy like predicting doom and gloom over debt when Bush was President…..and when given a chance to actually put this so called “expertise” to work like being Treasury Secretary….. he runs back to the saftey of his column and talking head friends with the MSM…..(“oh…I can be much more effective from my keyboard”).
……..to continue his ankle biting from the side lines.

You earn respect….
……….and all the personal attacks and hypocrisy coming from this blatant ideologue leave him justifiably receiving the same below the belt hits he loves so much to dish out.

The fact that liberals bestow so much admiration for a man who thinks that alien invasions and stamping out Trillion dollar coins can solve our financial problems shows just how cultish the democratic party has become.

Baxter Greene on February 16, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Krugman even looks demented.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 5:12 PM

daily … ideological Vaudeville act”

the same can be said for Morning Joe. I hate hyopcrites.

unseen on February 16, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Jim DeMint is ready to lead the charge for conservative values at the grassroots level. Join The Heritage Foundation.
http://joinheritage.com/lead-the-charge/?roi=echo3-14593795349-11457016-42f8ad59b540d90491bd0eb4762a2ca3&utm_source=HeritageFoundation&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=2013LTC&utm_content=Email1ThisMessage

onlineanalyst on February 16, 2013 at 5:13 PM

The fact that liberals bestow so much admiration for a man who thinks that alien invasions and stamping out Trillion dollar coins can solve our financial problems shows just how cultish the democratic party has become.

Baxter Greene on February 16, 2013 at 5:11 PM

If alien invaders came and took him away, that would solve one of our problems. Frankly, at the rate the DIC (Destroyer In Chief) is going an alien invasion is going to start looking pretty good before too much longer.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Joe Scarborough, Paul Krugman, Ed Morrissey et al. Your main function is to provide us entertainment and promote yourselves for followers and viewers. Don’t take yourselves too seriously.
No need for any of you to give apologies to each other at anytime.

Goodale on February 16, 2013 at 4:59 PM

hmmm I thought the main function of all media is to INFORM being enertained if it happens is a side benefit

unseen on February 16, 2013 at 5:15 PM

RINO in Name Only on February 16, 2013 at 3:52 PM,

certain people make choices (krugman) and by doing so forfeit basic decencies.

rob verdi on February 16, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Right, I agree Krugman forfeited any right to respectful treatment a long time ago. He has no right to be treated with the slightest bit of dignity here, and no business whining about how Scarborough treated him.

My only point, which I think is probably Ed’s as well, is that the way a host treats a guest isn’t really about what the guest deserves or has a right to. Krugman deserves nothing, but Scarborough’s behavior towards him sends a message about how he is willing to treat a guest in general.

I have no sympathy for Krugman here.

It’s not a big deal anyway, but I guess that’s where Ed is coming from.

RINO in Name Only on February 16, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Paul “Enron” Krugman
Joe “Lori Klausutis” Scarborough

Nah, I think I’ll go shovel some snow. More productive than what these two are shoveling.

can_con on February 16, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Scarborough only does Republican about once a month, so he’s finished for February. Tune in again in March for his single Republican moment in that month.

RJL on February 16, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Sh!t…the only time this guy really goes after a liberal is when one has offended him personally.

He went after Mika the other day for calling him a name…going on and on and on about it but says nothing when worse is said about any Conservative.

This is the same guy that got his panties all bunched up over Hillary daring to have to answer tough questions about Benghazi then verbally attacked and insulted a Republican woman for daring to defend the rights of women to protect themselves with a gun.

Tea Party….Bush…Conservatives…..Rush…McConell….Palin…..he attacks on a regular basis….
……….Obama….Reid…Pelosi…..Maher…..socialist….Occupy Wall St…..Hillary….he can’t kiss their a$$ enough.

Nothing but an MSDNC token Republican clown in party identification only, used by liberals to say….”even Republicans agree with us”……

Baxter Greene on February 16, 2013 at 5:22 PM

Tell him what Krugman “won” isn’t a real Nobel Prize. It’s simply a Memorial Award in Economics, one established nearly a century after Alfred Nobel endowed the original awards. The Nobel foundation oversees it, but it’s not an actual Nobel Prize.

Del Dolemonte on February 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Thanks for that bit of info.

Everybody I know – or read – always refers to Krazy Kat Krugman as a “Nobel Prize-winner”.

It’ll be fun to throw that bit in their face the next time.

Solaratov on February 16, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Right, I agree Krugman forfeited any right to respectful treatment a long time ago. He has no right to be treated with the slightest bit of dignity here, and no business whining about how Scarborough treated him.

RINO in Name Only on February 16, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Especially after he went to his NY Times swamp to accuse Palin of being an accessory to murder based on an obscure election map and her saying “reload” one day.

No proof…no facts to back it up….not one shred of evidence to connect them what-so-ever.Investigation showed Loughner was stalking Giffords since 2007 (well before Palin was on the scene)…had no link to the Tea Party or Palin….was anit-war…hated Bush…but loved his dope.
….Democrats had the same types of maps and engaged in much more bigoted hatred with even Obama calling for his followers to “punish your enemies”……

…and Krugman still stands by his slanderous accusations.

Real man of genius for sure.

Baxter Greene on February 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM

If alien invaders came and took him away, that would solve one of our problems. Frankly, at the rate the DIC (Destroyer In Chief) is going an alien invasion is going to start looking pretty good before too much longer.

VorDaj on February 16, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Heh…true.

As long as some of them look like the hot blond from Heavy Metal I’m in.

Baxter Greene on February 16, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Laurel and Hardy

pat on February 16, 2013 at 5:33 PM

I nominate both Joe and the Krugster for first-class staterooms on the “B” Ark, which will hopefully be commanded by our current Commander-in-Chief. Let’s get cracking building that puppy, shall we?

drunyan8315 on February 16, 2013 at 5:44 PM

Scarborough on Krugman: “self-consumed professor” with a “daily … ideological Vaudeville act”… So accurately says a self-consumed former politician with a daily ideological Vaudeville act…

deepdiver on February 16, 2013 at 5:59 PM

C’MON ED…. I’m sick of hearing conservatives tell other conservatives they owe leftists an apology. People like Krugman deserve me and my generation an apology for what their policies will have wraught on our future. Scarborough owes him nothing.

eski502 on February 16, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Tell him what Krugman “won” isn’t a real Nobel Prize. It’s simply a Memorial Award in Economics, one established nearly a century after Alfred Nobel endowed the original awards. The Nobel foundation oversees it, but it’s not an actual Nobel Prize.

Del Dolemonte on February 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Thanks for that bit of info.

Everybody I know – or read – always refers to Krazy Kat Krugman as a “Nobel Prize-winner”.

It’ll be fun to throw that bit in their face the next time.

Solaratov on February 16, 2013 at 5:24 PM

Officially, it is called the “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”

wiki:

Although not one of the Nobel Prizes established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895, it is identified with them, and prizes are announced with and awarded at the same ceremony.

Del Dolemonte on February 16, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Baxter Greene

…it’s nice that BG is getting active again!
(:->)

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Have only read the headline. Pot/kettle.

Cindy Munford on February 16, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Ed, I don’t think Joe owes former Enron adviser Paul Krugman anything. He’s a hack taken far too seriously who doesn’t seem to understand the first thing about basic economics. Joe is a hack occasionally and is also taken too seriously by some people (i.e. his role as the most prominent “conservative who criticizes other conservatives,”) but Krugman is lower than slime.

BigWillieStyles on February 16, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Joe doesn’t owe Krugman any apology in my opinion. Krugman is part of what is hammering this country and he should be called out anytime and anyplace. He is pond scum as are his followers. And I’m no real fan of Scarborough.

mimi1220 on February 16, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Joe is a Phony

Krugman is a Phony

Ed is a Phony for pretending this is a “story”

If anyone wants to be helpful – they should do what they can to bring complete and total destruction to the careers and livelihood of these misanthropes and hateful people.

NOTHING should be “off-limits” in achieving this!

williamg on February 16, 2013 at 7:47 PM

I always have fun seeing how angry Krugman makes conservatives, and how difficult it is for said people to deal with the fact that he’s right far more often than not. The man is a brilliant economist and commands the respect he gets for good reason.

Typhonsentra on February 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Worrying about whether one lefty should apologize to another lefty is a real waste of time

rik on February 16, 2013 at 8:31 PM

I always have fun seeing how angry Krugman makes conservatives, and how difficult it is for said people to deal with the fact that he’s right far more often than not. The man is a brilliant economist and commands the respect he gets for good reason.

Typhonsentra on February 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM

LOL. Troll fail.

Or was the sarcasm tag left off?

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 9:12 PM

Here, I’ll go with Joe. Krugman is unbelievably so full of himself. Met him twice. Talked about economic policies on meeting. And for a dignified Nobel prize winning economist, accused me of being a teaba**er. Crazy dude.
tommy71 on February 16, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I would love for somebody to kick him square in the vajay jay with the utmost decorum and civility.

the botnet on February 16, 2013 at 9:35 PM

Russia should be thankful for yesterday’s meteor event, because according to the Krugman’s of the world, their economy is about to boom as a result of all the broken windows.

xblade on February 16, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Russia should be thankful for yesterday’s meteor event, because according to the Krugman’s of the world, their economy is about to boom as a result of all the broken windows.

xblade on February 16, 2013 at 9:50 PM

Addendum..

Parable of the broken window

Intro..

The parable of the broken window was introduced by Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay Ce qu’on voit et ce qu’on ne voit pas (That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Unseen) to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is actually not a net-benefit to society. The parable, also known as the broken window fallacy or glazier’s fallacy, demonstrates how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are “unseen” or ignored.

farsighted on February 16, 2013 at 10:03 PM

S.E. Cupp should watch a bit of Scarborough and see the path she is headed down. Hanging around with MSNBC nuts is not good for your mental health.

Cindy Munford on February 16, 2013 at 11:46 PM

I always have fun seeing how angry Krugman makes conservatives, and how difficult it is for said people to deal with the fact that he’s right far more often than not. The man is a brilliant economist and commands the respect he gets for good reason.

Typhonsentra on February 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Perhaps he was a brilliant economist at one time, but no longer. His mind has been poisoned by his political views. Please see RWMs post above to see how he changed his tune about deficit spending. Ten years ago, he was aghast at 350 billion annual deficits. Now he thinks that we can run deficits 3-4 times that size – or more. His notions that we can sustain these kind of deficits indefinitely are the ravings of a madman.

You are correct that his views carry some respect among the elite in this country – but only because our political elite is in complete denial about how bad the fiscal situation is in this country. It is the kind of denial that comes from having ones entire worldview challenged by uncomfortable realities – and these are realities that will not allow themselves to be ignored forever.

SubmarineDoc on February 17, 2013 at 1:14 AM

KOOLAID2 on February 16, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Thanks

Baxter Greene on February 17, 2013 at 1:43 AM

Krugman makes one reconsider the notion of chin whiskers.

Then again it is probably a better facade than what lies beneath.

Krugman is crud that fell out of his own nose.

Sherman1864 on February 17, 2013 at 4:04 AM

I always have fun seeing how angry Krugman makes conservatives, and how difficult it is for said people to deal with the fact that he’s right far more often than not. The man is a brilliant economist and commands the respect he gets for good reason.

Typhonsentra on February 16, 2013 at 8:29 PM

My definition of brilliant is somewhat different from yours.

Irritable Pundit on February 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM